Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this continued death and suffering just so NATO and Zelensky can avoid a hit to their ego. We could have a peace agreement but not for this. An absolute travesty.

No, the death and suffering are because the russians invaded a soverign nation with its own borders and refuses to get out. What does that have to do with NATO or Zelensky's ego?

Maybe look to Putin's ego and why he feels it necessary to invade other countries?

The motives are irrelevant. Russia has won a significant portion of the Ukraine that they have proven to be capable of holding on to. They also have millions more men. Zelensky should cut his losses instead of continuing to doom his finite supply of 40 year old conscripts to a hopeless meat grinder.

[Anonymous]

Russia is such a bizarre country. By western estimates, they've suffered between 470,000 and 720,000 casualties since invading Ukraine two and a half years ago. And for what? They already had Crimea and Donbas since 2014. Their gains have been marginal and in the meantime they've lost most of the Black Sea fleet, nearly all their armor and artillery, a high proportion of their air force, all of their Spetsnaz and VDV special forces, and hundreds of thousands of poorly trained soldiers.

And then today, a day before a NATO summit, they decide to do a massive missile barrage against civilian targets in Ukraine, including two hospitals in Kyiv, with particular attention directed at a children's oncology ward.

Russia is such a garbage nation. Hopefully, this NATO summit leads to significantly more Patriot air defense batteries for Ukraine. Clearly, Ukraine's air defense is insufficient. Poland is chomping at the bit to take it to the Russians. And that is a significant military force. I wouldn't be surprised if other nations start to get involved in the foreseeable future. Russia is a menace to the entire region. It is in everyone's interest to see Russia crushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia is such a bizarre country. By western estimates, they've suffered between 470,000 and 720,000 casualties since invading Ukraine two and a half years ago. And for what? They already had Crimea and Donbas since 2014. Their gains have been marginal and in the meantime they've lost most of the Black Sea fleet, nearly all their armor and artillery, a high proportion of their air force, all of their Spetsnaz and VDV special forces, and hundreds of thousands of poorly trained soldiers.

And then today, a day before a NATO summit, they decide to do a massive missile barrage against civilian targets in Ukraine, including two hospitals in Kyiv, with particular attention directed at a children's oncology ward.

Russia is such a garbage nation. Hopefully, this NATO summit leads to significantly more Patriot air defense batteries for Ukraine. Clearly, Ukraine's air defense is insufficient. Poland is chomping at the bit to take it to the Russians. And that is a significant military force. I wouldn't be surprised if other nations start to get involved in the foreseeable future. Russia is a menace to the entire region. It is in everyone's interest to see Russia crushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russia apologists need to stop making fools of themselves. The fact that it had a turbojet is a SIGNIFICANT factor. So much so that it's like whether an animal breathes with lungs or breathes in water with gills. That is the propulsion mechanism.

Antiair rockets like the Patriot need to be fast, and have a 160 km (max) range, which is why they use rocket engines.

Cruise missiles on the other hand need to travel long distances like 2000 km and don't fly as fast, which is why they, like airplanes, use jet engines.

The fact that it clearly has a turbojet firmly establishes that it was a cruise missile, and not an antiair missile.

Stop showing your ignorance.

A Russian missile destroyed a Children's hospital and people are arguing over WHAT KIND of missile it was? What is wrong with you?

You must have missed the discussion. Posters were falsely trying to claim that the hospital was destroyed by a US-made Patriot fired by Ukraine but that's impossible because they have rocket engines, whereas the missile that hit the hospital was a Russian KH-101 missile which is turbojet powered. They were trying to blame Ukraine and the US for the strike on the hospital - a blatant lie. All outrage lies with Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia is such a bizarre country. By western estimates, they've suffered between 470,000 and 720,000 casualties since invading Ukraine two and a half years ago. And for what? They already had Crimea and Donbas since 2014. Their gains have been marginal and in the meantime they've lost most of the Black Sea fleet, nearly all their armor and artillery, a high proportion of their air force, all of their Spetsnaz and VDV special forces, and hundreds of thousands of poorly trained soldiers.

And then today, a day before a NATO summit, they decide to do a massive missile barrage against civilian targets in Ukraine, including two hospitals in Kyiv, with particular attention directed at a children's oncology ward.

Russia is such a garbage nation. Hopefully, this NATO summit leads to significantly more Patriot air defense batteries for Ukraine. Clearly, Ukraine's air defense is insufficient. Poland is chomping at the bit to take it to the Russians. And that is a significant military force. I wouldn't be surprised if other nations start to get involved in the foreseeable future. Russia is a menace to the entire region. It is in everyone's interest to see Russia crushed.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russia apologists need to stop making fools of themselves. The fact that it had a turbojet is a SIGNIFICANT factor. So much so that it's like whether an animal breathes with lungs or breathes in water with gills. That is the propulsion mechanism.

Antiair rockets like the Patriot need to be fast, and have a 160 km (max) range, which is why they use rocket engines.

Cruise missiles on the other hand need to travel long distances like 2000 km and don't fly as fast, which is why they, like airplanes, use jet engines.

The fact that it clearly has a turbojet firmly establishes that it was a cruise missile, and not an antiair missile.

Stop showing your ignorance.

A Russian missile destroyed a Children's hospital and people are arguing over WHAT KIND of missile it was? What is wrong with you?

You must have missed the discussion. Posters were falsely trying to claim that the hospital was destroyed by a US-made Patriot fired by Ukraine but that's impossible because they have rocket engines, whereas the missile that hit the hospital was a Russian KH-101 missile which is turbojet powered. They were trying to blame Ukraine and the US for the strike on the hospital - a blatant lie. All outrage lies with Russia.

Any American trying to make that argument is a traitor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russia apologists need to stop making fools of themselves. The fact that it had a turbojet is a SIGNIFICANT factor. So much so that it's like whether an animal breathes with lungs or breathes in water with gills. That is the propulsion mechanism.

Antiair rockets like the Patriot need to be fast, and have a 160 km (max) range, which is why they use rocket engines.

Cruise missiles on the other hand need to travel long distances like 2000 km and don't fly as fast, which is why they, like airplanes, use jet engines.

The fact that it clearly has a turbojet firmly establishes that it was a cruise missile, and not an antiair missile.

Stop showing your ignorance.

A Russian missile destroyed a Children's hospital and people are arguing over WHAT KIND of missile it was? What is wrong with you?

No missile hit the hospital though. A missile hit a building next to the hospital and sprayed the hospital with shrapnel. The Ukrainian side then went full Maude Flanders for pages and pages, when I don't even think there was a confirmed casualty from that missile. That alone should tell you it wasn't an X-101 aimed at the hospital.

The red white and blue shills are now arguing with the blue and yellow shills over whose missile blew out the windows of the hospital. This is because there is a NATO summit starting tomorrow, and Ukraine needs some good propaganda to keep the money flowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The missile that hit the hospital was also much too slow to be a PAC-3. A PAC-3 flies at Mach 5. A KH-101 is subsonic, Mach 0.6-0.78. You would not have gotten multiple clear frames of a PAC-3 but you would easily capture a KH-101 as happened in the video.

An argument that its an AIM-120:

Focuses more on the blast pattern, which is consistent with a cluster head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The missile that hit the hospital was also much too slow to be a PAC-3. A PAC-3 flies at Mach 5. A KH-101 is subsonic, Mach 0.6-0.78. You would not have gotten multiple clear frames of a PAC-3 but you would easily capture a KH-101 as happened in the video.

An argument that its an AIM-120:

Focuses more on the blast pattern, which is consistent with a cluster head.

Please stop trying to destroy the narrative. That was a deepfake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky, who is not Ukranian, and Blackrock, controlled by a guy who is not Ukranian, are using Ukranian men’s lives to get rich.

Truth. How much of Ukraine does Blackrock own so far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The missile that hit the hospital was also much too slow to be a PAC-3. A PAC-3 flies at Mach 5. A KH-101 is subsonic, Mach 0.6-0.78. You would not have gotten multiple clear frames of a PAC-3 but you would easily capture a KH-101 as happened in the video.

An argument that its an AIM-120:

Focuses more on the blast pattern, which is consistent with a cluster head.

Sorry, it wasn't an AIM-120 either. The missile that hit clearly showed an intake for a turbojet. AIM-120 has a solid-fuel rocket motor, no air intake for a turbojet.

It was definitely a Russian cruise missile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russia apologists need to stop making fools of themselves. The fact that it had a turbojet is a SIGNIFICANT factor. So much so that it's like whether an animal breathes with lungs or breathes in water with gills. That is the propulsion mechanism.

Antiair rockets like the Patriot need to be fast, and have a 160 km (max) range, which is why they use rocket engines.

Cruise missiles on the other hand need to travel long distances like 2000 km and don't fly as fast, which is why they, like airplanes, use jet engines.

The fact that it clearly has a turbojet firmly establishes that it was a cruise missile, and not an antiair missile.

Stop showing your ignorance.

A Russian missile destroyed a Children's hospital and people are arguing over WHAT KIND of missile it was? What is wrong with you?

You must have missed the discussion. Posters were falsely trying to claim that the hospital was destroyed by a US-made Patriot fired by Ukraine but that's impossible because they have rocket engines, whereas the missile that hit the hospital was a Russian KH-101 missile which is turbojet powered. They were trying to blame Ukraine and the US for the strike on the hospital - a blatant lie. All outrage lies with Russia.

Any American trying to make that argument is a traitor.

Any American trying to make the false argument that what was obviously a Russian cruise missile that did damage to a childrens hospital was instead an American missile fired by Ukrainians would indeed be a traitor, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The missile that hit the hospital was also much too slow to be a PAC-3. A PAC-3 flies at Mach 5. A KH-101 is subsonic, Mach 0.6-0.78. You would not have gotten multiple clear frames of a PAC-3 but you would easily capture a KH-101 as happened in the video.

An argument that its an AIM-120:

Focuses more on the blast pattern, which is consistent with a cluster head.

Sorry, it wasn't an AIM-120 either. The missile that hit clearly showed an intake for a turbojet. AIM-120 has a solid-fuel rocket motor, no air intake for a turbojet.

It was definitely a Russian cruise missile.

The AIM 120 was fired at that cruise missile to stop it. Unfortunately it looks like it failed to neutralize which lead to the cruise missile destroying the building to the right of the one which got the impact from the 120.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Russia apologists need to stop making fools of themselves. The fact that it had a turbojet is a SIGNIFICANT factor. So much so that it's like whether an animal breathes with lungs or breathes in water with gills. That is the propulsion mechanism.

Antiair rockets like the Patriot need to be fast, and have a 160 km (max) range, which is why they use rocket engines.

Cruise missiles on the other hand need to travel long distances like 2000 km and don't fly as fast, which is why they, like airplanes, use jet engines.

The fact that it clearly has a turbojet firmly establishes that it was a cruise missile, and not an antiair missile.

Stop showing your ignorance.

A Russian missile destroyed a Children's hospital and people are arguing over WHAT KIND of missile it was? What is wrong with you?

In what war does any country or military follow the rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The missile that hit the hospital was also much too slow to be a PAC-3. A PAC-3 flies at Mach 5. A KH-101 is subsonic, Mach 0.6-0.78. You would not have gotten multiple clear frames of a PAC-3 but you would easily capture a KH-101 as happened in the video.

An argument that its an AIM-120:

Focuses more on the blast pattern, which is consistent with a cluster head.

Sorry, it wasn't an AIM-120 either. The missile that hit clearly showed an intake for a turbojet. AIM-120 has a solid-fuel rocket motor, no air intake for a turbojet.

It was definitely a Russian cruise missile.

The AIM 120 was fired at that cruise missile to stop it. Unfortunately it looks like it failed to neutralize which lead to the cruise missile destroying the building to the right of the one which got the impact from the 120.

Never would have happened in the first place if Russians hadn't been firing cruise missiles at or over residential areas.